Fourth Taiwan Strait Crisis

Status
Not open for further replies.

clockwork

Junior Member
Registered Member
No, it is the exact opposite. US does threat overestimation if it thinks it can win only. People keep bringing up 1950s missile gap but never remember Macarthur's Home by Christmas or "policing action" in Vietnam.
Then why does the Pentagon say China will have over a thousand by 2030?

To say China *currently* has far more than 350 is silly cope, to say they will in a few years is perfectly valid.

It's pretty easy to count TELs and the brigades & bases they're all located at as well, the OSINT guys have them all mapped out very well.
 

Biscuits

Colonel
Registered Member
This is illogical. "I don't know" is a perfectly valid response to the number of warheads China has. "I don't know, therefore it has a massive secret arsenal" is not a valid inference.

There's also the issue of how many warheads China actually has vs. how many the US thinks it has. The former is unknowable unless you're a very senior Chinese military official or the Chinese president. The latter is a very public number: 350 give or take a few dozen. This is what the US is taking into account in planning a nuclear war against China, so for all intents and purposes this is the number of warheads China has.

Like I said, if China has a secret stockpile of warheads somewhere (and there's no reason to believe it does other than wishful thinking), then it had better announce it soon because they're doing no good staying secret. In addition, even if China has substantially more then it still wouldn't be at parity with the US. There's no way it can do that without creating new fissile material and that would be known very quickly.
I've never said they had a massive stockpile as in one larger than USSR or something.

There are factors I dont know but what I do know at least is that China has a lot more missiles, even just counting ultra modern ones, than what fits 350 warheads.

So you're assuming a lot of missiles are empty, despite the missiles being way more expensive than warheads themselves?

Looking at where the 350 claim comes from, apparently its from a 1980s estimate. So, in 40 years China just sat around never introducing new warheads than the moldy 80s ones, even as several generations of new ICBM came out? I'm sorry but that requires an insane suspension of disbelief.

Reasonable estimate based on amount of missiles is probably around the 1000 range, not much higher and not much lower. Enough to destroy the whole western world, especially with Russia's legacy systems in there too.

If the situation escalates to nuclear war, which it first have to escalate into conventional war first for a long time before nukes become a necessity, you'll see the full lineup of the rocket force then. If not, you'll see it the moment China decides it needs to glass the US homeland because there's no other option. Same reason Israel doesn't divulge how many nukes they have and won't until shit is absolutely sure to go down. Not divulging it allows them to avoid scrutiny in international arms treaties and keeps the enemy guessing.

Out of all suggestions seen in this thread, removing the NFU is the most stupid one. The NFU is one of China's most important tool to winning a conventional war with America. Having NFU means that if a ballistic missile is inbound at an US carrier or even an US city, US will not be able to escalate because everyone knows it is a conventional and not possibly a nuclear missile.

NFU might seem like a dove policy at first glance but in reality its a hawk one that allows China to fully use its tech advantage in rocketry without worrying about nuclear war escalation.
 

erikh

New Member
China already is the bad guy. If it does nothing then it would just be a weak bad guy.
Or is China really _the_ bad guy? Yes, many people, especially in the West who consider China as a "bad guy" as they parrot the media. But Russia and other countries are considered much, much worse. There are many people in many countries who cares more about the US rather than China. Even more don't care about China. China doesn't need to make it easier for the US to convince these people otherwise.

I didn't say China shouldn't do anything, I said China should't take the first shot. It should do something that shows strong assertion of its sovereignty, e.g armed overflight. I think we are in agreement here, unless you think that China should fire the first shot or she will be considered a weak bad guy?
 

Chish

Junior Member
Registered Member
Patience is going to be very tough to come by when you're constantly being spat on by your bully daring you to do something about it laughing at you at the same time. Can the Chinese people stomach such indignity till then?
Not sure this will lead to a hot war but definitely going to be a freezing war. Ambassadors will be recalled, phone calls unanswered, US will be bludgeoned economically, US retaliated with more sanctions and decoupling, China double downs with banning exports of strategic materials, Both increase military spendings, more nukes and the list goes on, untill.........?
 

abc123

Junior Member
Registered Member
china must engage USA with a military showdown. Plain and simple

China isn't strong enough for that and it won't be for a nice number of years. Plain and simple.
Chinese military over-reaction now ( when China isn't ready yet ) is what the US wants.

China had far more important US provocations where she didn't react. It would be foolish to do it now.
 

Abominable

Major
Registered Member
Eventually, yes. The problem is "eventually" on 1.4% is too slow.

That might have been a consideration in better times, but it isn't one when tensions are high enough that killing the 3rd person in the US government's line of succession is a real possibility. In fact, I would argue that it's beneficial for the START treaty to collapse. Russia has a mountain of fissile material it couldn't possibly go through and China has a lot of industrial capacity to manufacture warheads - match made in Heaven if you ask me.
Cold Wars aren't sprints, they are marathons. Repeating the mistakes of the USSR isn't the right way to go about it.

The only country that benefits from START's collapse is America. Right now both America and Russia agree to monitor each others stockpile with on site inspections, limits to movements of mobile ICBM launchers and lots of other restrictions. All while China is under no restrictions. How does it benefit China for America to give that up?

China already has plenty of fissile material just from reprocessing nuclear waste that's been stockpiled for decades. I don't think there was any need to get anything from Russia, apart from know how maybe.
 

styx

Junior Member
Registered Member
China isn't strong enough for that and it won't be for a nice number of years. Plain and simple.
Chinese military over-reaction now ( when China isn't ready yet ) is what the US wants.

China had far more important US provocations where she didn't react. It would be foolish to do it now.
china 1000 km from his coast can engage multiple cvbg it has about 200 h6 bomber and hundreds of heavy fighters
 

zgx09t

Junior Member
Registered Member
China isn't strong enough for that and it won't be for a nice number of years. Plain and simple.
Chinese military over-reaction now ( when China isn't ready yet ) is what the US wants.

China had far more important US provocations where she didn't react. It would be foolish to do it now.

I see, China has to STFU and suck it up, bend over backwards, because China isn't strong enough now.
Just to help them out, PLA should just issue lubes to help them out?
 

solarz

Brigadier
There are some nuisances to differentiate though.

Hong Kong case was entirely a civil and political unrest where both China and US militaries remain uninvolved.
Never during the entire episode Xi, or PLA, didn't issue such stark strong warnings at the national level.

Shooting down an unarmed plane from the get-go is a bad taste, which I'm sure PLAAF definitely wouldn't do.
But what happens after initial encounter, if she shows up, will be like, as they say, the rest is the history, if it's a hundred planes pile up all armed, ready and pumped, or some of them scared. Shits can happen.

My point was that the Chinese government has far more competency and information available than we do.

They haven't said they will shoot down Pelosi' plane, but *if* they do so, I'm certain it will be a carefully considered action with the confidence of being able to neutralize whatever US reaction there will be.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Top